|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jun 28, 2006 13:36:31 GMT -4
BYU Physics Prof Finds Thermate in WTC Physical Samples, Building Collapses an Inside JobAuthor: Jacob Hamblin
Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue. photo of wtc steel with diagonal cut, thermate residue
Prof. Steven Jones, who conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, has analyzed materials from WTC and has detected the existence of thermate, used for "cutting" the steel support columns, as evident in the photo below.
Dr. Jones is a co-founder of Scholars for 911 Truth.
Dr. Jones in earlier work pointed to thermate as the likely explosive that brought down the WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 skyscrapers. But only recently was physical material analysed in the lab and the presence of thermate announced. The samples were provided Dr. Jones team from redundant sources.
Both BYU and Prof. Jones have been offered additional grants if he would "change the direction" of his research. In addition, there have been threats made by an individual who "is taking action" to stop Steven Jones' research, specifically his experiment with thermites (aluminothermics), on the grounds his work may be helpful to "terrorists". Jones notes that much more detailed information on both thermite and thermate is readily available on the Internet. This is hard evidence that the points to the controlled demolition of the WTC. Prof. Jones obtained his samples from some of the WTC scrap metal that was being used to make a commemorative 9-11 sculpture.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jun 28, 2006 14:10:39 GMT -4
This is hard evidence that the points to the controlled demolition of the WTC..
Go ahead, pull the other one.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 28, 2006 14:39:38 GMT -4
Why is a Physics professor doing chemical and structural analysis?
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jun 28, 2006 15:00:50 GMT -4
[quote author=jason board=othertheories thread=1151516191 post=1151519978]Why is a Physics professor doing chemical and structural analysis?[/quote]
One of his specialties is Archaeometry - the term given by archaeologists to the application of scientific methods from the physical sciences and engineering to archaeology problems. Radiocarbon dating techniques, remote sensing, and trace element analysis are all classed as archaeometric methods.
He's fully qualified to do a chemical analysis of the molten steel samples he found on the columns. That there was molten steel attached to the columns is a red flag to begin with. Finding the chemical signature of thermate (thermite + sulfur) is the smoking gun. No wonder they wanted to ship that steel out as fast as possible. Many of the beams were found to be cut at 45 degree angles, exactly how you would do it if you wanted to cut a standing beam and guarantee it would separate.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jun 28, 2006 15:06:34 GMT -4
The photo looks like torch cutting to me. Without a time-date referece to the photo at the top of the article we have no way of knowing when it was taken.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 28, 2006 15:08:06 GMT -4
I'll tell you why a physics professor is writing this paper: because the structural engineering professors in BYU's faculty disagree with him: From BYU's Newspaper "The Daily Universe" newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.” Reached for comment, structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both said they supported the statement as written." The story also notes that the University is in no way censoring Dr. Jones for his unpopular views on the subject, and that conspiracist claims that such was occuring have no basis in fact.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jun 28, 2006 15:26:27 GMT -4
I'll tell you why a physics professor is writing this paper: because the structural engineering professors in BYU's faculty disagree with him: From BYU's Newspaper "The Daily Universe" newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/57724“Professor Jones’s department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review. The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones.” Reached for comment, structural engineering professors Steven Benzley and Rick Balling both said they supported the statement as written." The story also notes that the University is in no way censoring Dr. Jones for his unpopular views on the subject, and that conspiracist claims that such was occuring have no basis in fact. Dr. Jones is far more qualified than structural engineering professors to do the type of chemical analysis he performed on the molten steel. No one claimed the University was pressuring him to stop his research. The pressure is coming from outside the University.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jun 28, 2006 15:34:12 GMT -4
The photo looks like torch cutting to me. Without a time-date referece to the photo at the top of the article we have no way of knowing when it was taken. The easiest way to cut a fallen beam with a torch would be at 90 degrees. Why would they do a 45 degree cut? Answer: they wouldn't.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 28, 2006 15:34:54 GMT -4
Au contraire. From the first paragraph of the article: "Reports that BYU administration put a gag order on Physics Professor Steven E. Jones are exaggerated, Jones said in a phone interview Friday.
Jones seemed surprised to hear that he’d been censored. He too was unaware of an e-mail that was circulating claiming that “BYU Brass Discredit Physics Professor for Saying WTC Brought Down by Controlled Demolition.” The e-mail quoted a “non-traditional” news Web site."
Hoax believers started manufacturing claims that the University was trying to get the professor to clam up just as soon as he started speaking.
I would very much like to see any evidence of grants being offered to BYU or Dr. Jones to "change his research", as I strongly suspect this idea is equally false.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 28, 2006 15:38:10 GMT -4
Wouldn't a 45-degree cut help ensure that the beam falls in the direction you want it to fall in (towards the low end of the cut)? Start from the top and cut down at an angle and the weight of the beam will help to push it in one direction.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jun 28, 2006 15:40:46 GMT -4
Au contraire. From the first paragraph of the article: "Reports that BYU administration put a gag order on Physics Professor Steven E. Jones are exaggerated, Jones said in a phone interview Friday. Jones seemed surprised to hear that he’d been censored. He too was unaware of an e-mail that was circulating claiming that “BYU Brass Discredit Physics Professor for Saying WTC Brought Down by Controlled Demolition.” The e-mail quoted a “non-traditional” news Web site." Hoax believers started manufacturing claims that the University was trying to get the professor to clam up just as soon as he started speaking. I would very much like to see any evidence of grants being offered to BYU or Dr. Jones to "change his research", as I strongly suspect this idea is equally false. So what if people are making such claims? The real issue is why there is a thermate signature on molten structural steel cut at 45 degree angles that shouldn't have been molten in the first place, according to the official story.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 28, 2006 15:57:57 GMT -4
So what? So you were incorrect when you said no one was making claims that the Professor was being censored by BYU. Who knows what else is incorrect in this story? Maybe the Professor really hasn't done any metallurgical testing at all. Maybe the "redundent sources" who provided the samples doctored them so that the Professor would get the result they wanted. Maybe there's really no story here at all, except that some professor is a critic of the current administration and likes making noise about it.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jun 28, 2006 16:03:23 GMT -4
From what I have read, the stuff found by the good professor has many logical alternative sources without making the jump to CD.
It takes a predisposed opinion to do that part.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jun 28, 2006 17:07:04 GMT -4
Workmen cut things at non-square angles all the time. Obviously 9:IJ is not a workman.
The safest way is not the easiest way. The most "common sense" way is not the easiest way.
The BEST way to make the cut is NOT 90 degrees, especially if you have several yards or perhaps hundreds of feet of twisted debris hanging crookedly off the upright stub and you need to get it out of the way to proceed with other tasks. Also, like felling trees, you would need to direct the fall of the cut-off piece. A right angle cut would make no sense.
The picture in the article is dinky (typical!) and hard to read on enlargement, but from what I can see, the slag from the cut on the top falls into the beam, and falls outside the beam on the bottom, consistent with workmen cutting debris with a torch. The cut is very sharp and neat, unlike what thermite (or thermate or magic pixy dust) would yield, and shows no distortion or warping: consistent with an intense source of focussed heat applied for a minimum duration and with no significant heat dwell.
Thermite, from what I've come to understand, would be an application of massive heat for a longer time, would not blow the debris in any specific direction, and would create a larger area of overheated and distorted metal.
Also, this cut is around, what, the third floor or above? How tall was the debris pile? How is that consistent with ANY of the thermite theories that put it in the basement layers?
Also, to be "evidence" it needs to have provenience, so we know for a fact it's taken during the narrow window of time when NO debris removal had begun. Much more likely it's a random picture from a journalist taking shots of cleanup in the larger window of opportunity.
As for sulfur, is there anybody doing independent verification, or are we at the mercy of the one researcher?
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Jun 28, 2006 18:08:55 GMT -4
So what? So you were incorrect when you said no one was making claims that the Professor was being censored by BYU. Who knows what else is incorrect in this story? Maybe the Professor really hasn't done any metallurgical testing at all. Maybe the "redundent sources" who provided the samples doctored them so that the Professor would get the result they wanted. Maybe there's really no story here at all, except that some professor is a critic of the current administration and likes making noise about it. Why aren't you equally skeptical of the 911 Commission findings, because they're "official" and "unbiased" and no possible conflicts of interest? Jones findings were peer-reviewed.
|
|